Msg# 1503 *BULLETIN BOARD* 07/15/88 075942 (Read 8 Times) To ALL Subj THE LAST TEMPTATION.

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Msg#: 1503 *BULLETIN BOARD* 07/15/88 07:59:42 (Read 8 Times) From: MICHELLE HASS To: ALL Subj: THE LAST TEMPTATION... As far as I can see, the uproar over "The Last Temptation Of Christ" is a tempest in a teapot. It is said that Jesus was "tempted in all things" and no doubt sexuality was one of them (though my Pagan/shamanic beliefs see nothing wrong in sexuality, I was an Evangelical long enough to know how much of a guilt/sin trip is laid on regarding one of God/ess's greatest gifts to humankind) although wouldn't you say that the temptation to become absolute ruler of the known world in exchange for declaring fealty to the Forces of Evil is a far more serious one than the sexual? The biblical record remains. And from what I know of the script (and the book) Jesus prevailed over the temptations that was thrown at him and I believe it all ends with the triumphant resurrection of a no-longer-human Christ. But the Bible also stresses the HUMANITY of Jesus. That is, if 5 years of bible study has made any dent in my memory. And I believe that is the message of Scorcese's film--Jesus had a HUMAN nature and went through the same temptation as the rest of us humans. So what the hell is all the squacking about? I remember the uproar over "Life Of Brian", and after I went to see it with the person who was supervising my Bible Study we both agreed that all the fuss was for naught. After all, the movie was about Brian, not Jesus, right? This is the same old thing. Once the movie comes out (they DO have a 1st amendment right to release it) it probably will quiet down. MK-H --- TBBS v2.0 * Origin: Cult Monitor LA (818)985-2701 (102/744) Msg#: 2780 *BULLETIN BOARD* 08/05/88 11:43:38 (Read 2 Times) From: MICHELLE HASS To: ALL Subj: "TEMPTATION" UPDATE To all concerned with Religious and Expressive freedom: Tomorrow there will be a mock crucifixion held by the demagoguic Fundie leader RL Hymers at the Wilshire Boulevard Synagogue. This is the synagogue that MCA/Universal CEO Lew Wasserman attends, and the "protest" is scheduled for the same time as Saturday Shabbat services. This is a blatant attempt to fan anti-Jewish sentiment and at intimidating the leadership of MCA/Universal into bowing to their demands. BE THERE if you care about Religious Freedom and the 1st amendment!!!! MK-H --- TBBS v2.0 * Origin: Cult Monitor LA (818)985-2701 (102/744) Msg#: 2929 *BULLETIN BOARD* 08/07/88 23:38:26 (Read 1 Times) From: MICHELLE HASS To: ALL, ESP. MATTHEW Subj: "TEMPTATION" FOLLOWUP #2 Here's an update on the "Last Temptation of Christ" front: The Rev. Hymers/Fundamentalist Tabernacle people showed up to do their protest yesterday, and were greeted with two things...Jewish Defense League boys forming a human chain around the Wilshire Boulevard Temple, and the news that, no, Lew Wasserman is NOT a member of that temple. They turned tail and left. Onward Christian soldiers, right...? MK-H --- TBBS v2.0 * Origin: Cult Monitor LA (818)985-2701 (102/744) Msg#: 3124 *BULLETIN BOARD* 08/09/88 18:35:41 (Read 0 Times) From: MICHELLE HASS To: ALL Subj: "TEMPTATION" UPDATE As I have promised, another update on the "Last Temptation of Christ" movie from roughly 20 miles from the heart of Hollywood...Gary Franklin, the influential KABC TV and AM Radio film critic, loudly and roundly panned the movie as being, quote "so boring that the ushers will have quite the task waking up sleeping patrons after the movie is over." As it is, this may wind up ending with a whimper of boredom rather than a bang of more controversy. The Fundies hate it. The Catholics hate it. And now the movie critics are panning it in droves, saying it's over 2 1/2 hours of boredom. On the Franklin scale of one to ten, ten being best, it got but a TWO. You'll find out how it rates on the Klein-Hass scale probably by next week. Live Long And Perspire (which is what we're doing from the humid weather here!) MK-H Msg#: 3514 *BULLETIN BOARD* 08/25/88 01:48:00 (Read 1 Times) From: DEREK MOORE To: MICHELLE HASS Subj: BORING HUMANIST PROPAGANDA "TEMPTAT After reading your message up to the latter part of August, I had to answer you. Does your 1st Amendment Rights let you do anything you want? You seem to defend the "Temptation" movie, and say any thing has a right to be said. That is bull. Some things don't need to be said, especially when children are concerned or involved. This echo should be open to children, but vulgar language and severe flaming are not allowed, because we think certain things shouldn't be said. As for the rest of your messages, the content is minimal. When is the movie review from you coming? Can't you spring for ten bucks. What make you think we want your opinion anyway? You act as if your opinion represents MCA. Legitimate Christians(ones who take Jesus Christ straight out of the Bible, believe He is Lord, and all his words are true) have legitimate gripes with the movie. My main gripe is that Jesus Christ is depicted on the cross as sinning. I said sinning. It is a sin for people to lust for one another, (Mat. 5:28, Gal.5:16,17 ; I Thess. 4:3-6 ; II Tim. 2:22) I could produce at least twice as many more scriptures, describing lust and fornication as being sin, when the acts aren't even physically committed. This brings us to the greater point. Did Jesus die on the cross in a state of unholiness? Was he lusting and sinning when he died? Was Jesus a worthy sacrifice that amounted to anything or was he just another man. The movie is a very deliberate, low down, sneaky, rotten, slimy, straight out of the pit attempt to mock Christianity. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and personal savior. I believe the Bible. People who support the movie don't know lots of scriptures which are very pertinent. Of course if you don't believe the Bible, then you wouldn't have a problem with the movie. The teaching of this movie falls partly falls in line with various cults. Either they believe Jesus was just another man who could sin or they don't believe all the Bible. Some cults even have to write their own version to make it say what they want it to stay. Others even add books. Some say new angels inspired the variations from the Bible. It all goes back to the Holy Words ofthe Bible. Either you believe them or you don't. The Bible clearly states that believing that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven (John 14:6 ; Acts 4:10-12). Believe what you want. I'm sticking to the Bible and Jesus. I'll be in heaven. In the name of Jesus, I bind the evil spirits that are trying to control our lives. In the name of Jesus, I bind them from our families, finances, whatever we do, the people we see, the (so-called) good witches in this echo, our property, and every area of our lives. In the name of Jesus, I loose our ministering angels to go into to all the above mentioned areas and to do the Father's will for us. Father I ask In the name of Jesus, that you show us all your will and make us live in your love. Jesus Christ, Father, and Holy Spirit I love you. Msg#: 3728 *BULLETIN BOARD* 08/29/88 22:03:48 (Read 2 Times) From: JAMES MACCURDY To: MICHELLE HASS (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3682 (BORING HUMANIST PROPAGANDA "TEMP) You are quite right in saying that the First Amendment protects even those works that some people find offensive. In fact, that is its very purpose. It was created so that expression could not be suppressed merely because those with influence disagreed with it. To see this one only has to look as far as a U.S. history text and observe the events and legislation around the year 1776 -- and a mighty fine year it was! --James R. MacCurdy --- TBBS v2.0 * Origin: Cult Monitor LA (818)985-2701 (102/744) To: Mark Heinemann REPLY TO #191 SEE ALSO #205 Subj: The Movie Mark, I'm sorry you had to see Rev. Hymer and his lot in their embarrassing protest against this film. I can assure you that they do not speak for the whole of Christendom, not even the majority in their anti-semitic slant. I heard an interview with Dennis Prager, who is a practicing Jew, on a Christian radio station, where he was saying, and I agree, that no longer are Jews and Christians in opposition to one another: they fight a common enemy in the rampant secularism in our culture. I must say that Universal has shown a complete lack of sensitivity toward christians in producing a movie so demeaning to the object of their faith, and also to the wider class of those who hold strong religious beliefs. I don't believe that this falls under the category of artistic license. I say this because there is so much else that would not be "protected" in this way: a movie produced today that was favorable to Hitler would not be acceptable, nor would a movie that portrayed great Black leaders like Martin Luther King in a very negative light. The executives at Universal would not even consider such films, because they know that the protest they would provoke and the potential for large portions of the public boycotting Universal would be too great. I believe that the Christian community (as least, the responsible ones) are exercising their Constitutional right of free speech in this protest. Also, to my knowlege, no one in the christian community has called on any government body to censor or in any way prevent the release and showing of this film, so I don't beleive one can call it censorship. bW #205 20 14 Aug 88 18:30:45 (RECV'D) From: Len Anderson To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #202 SEE ALSO #209 Subj: The Temptations... I liked that opinion, putting some sense into the supposed "suppression" of free thought and worship and anything else handy. According to reviewers the film, AS A FILM, is only so-so and, while appearing to follow the book (of the title) well, it just doesn't cut as a film about people. (maybe its a 'cross' for lead actor Willem Dafoe) The press, especially the visual TV news, will jump all over a small, minority group that is less like a Christian group and more like some hillside sect. Very dramatic to show someone carrying a polystyrene cross with a crown of polyethylene thorns while some "preacher" rants and raves. Good foolishness. Sensationalism since that group may represent only a tenth of a percent of Protestants, if that. From what I've seen on other BBSs, most of those 'complaining' are atheists who feel the need to defile Christian churchgoers and, in particular, clergy. They need to show religious authority figures in a bad light to satisfy some base, inner need. Too bad. Too bad is the same people suddenly crying out censorship and book burning and all sorts of repressive things when nothing of the sort is going on. Its some sort of whacko group protesting a "religious interpretation," expressing their right... Anti-religious hate groups misinterpret this as directed against THEM (they suffer this a lot). As far as I thought, Universal simply put a couple of actors (hired part-time out of the SAG) into a couple of these 'fringe' fundie groups and let them 'trigger' a religious frenzy. Not hard to do. Next thing you have lots of coverage and 25,000 marchers on the Cineplex Odeon (UI would have stopped that many long since if it was any OTHER protest). The whole thing gave me a headache. To relieve it I called Charleton Heston (Moses) and he came over with two tablets. #229 13 17 Aug 88 10:19:57 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Mark Heinemann REPLY TO #222 SEE ALSO #231 Subj: Movie: Last Temptation of Christ Yes, the Fundies telling us we couldn't see that movie is wonderful advertising for it. I also want to see it in a few weeks (when the activity starts to slow down), mainly because I resent anyone trying to tell me what movies I can and can't see...I wonder, one of those ministers who organized the opposition to the movie had a letter campaign which mailed out 2 1/2 *million* letters (no doubt asking for money??). Wouldn't feeding the homeless be a better way for them to spend their money?...//Phil// #230 16 17 Aug 88 10:28:49 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #204 Subj: 'Last Temptation' debate I think there is little to debate about the movie... Most people would agree, regardless of their opinions about the movie itself, that it should be shown. Anything else is censorship and book burning...//Phil// [230] 1 - 427 R K E N P - + Q or ? for help: #231 16 17 Aug 88 10:31:46 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #229 SEE ALSO #232 Subj: movie censorship FACT: The groups protesting the movie, 'Last Temptation of Christ' want Universal to pull the movie *and burn the negatives*. *That isn't censorship?* They even have offered to *buy* the film *and the negatives* from Universal, so *they* could burn the film? *That isn't censorship??* Oh, come on now! THINK...//Phil// #232 16 17 Aug 88 10:36:49 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Len Anderson REPLY TO #231 SEE ALSO #233 Subj: Slinging mud Oh come on now! Most of those complaining about censorship re. The Last Temptation of Christ are 'athiests'??? Suppose they are? Is that so bad? Suppose they aren't. Why do you think that being 'Christian' gives you a licence for censorship?? //Phil// #233 16 17 Aug 88 10:45:12 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #232 SEE ALSO #237 Subj: Arguing religion Well, you seem to be arguing religion here. Next thing you will probably start preaching...The issue regarding that movie (Last Temptation of Christ) isn't your right to practice you religion. It is my right to see anything I want to see, and Universal's right to produce it. If you don't agree with the movie you don't have to see it. Just don't tell *me* what to do!...//Phil// #241 19 17 Aug 88 22:21:29 (RECV'D) From: Bob Whitten To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #237 SEE ALSO #242 Subj: Temptations First, I do not want to sound like I'm on this board to rubber-stamp what other Christians are saying about this film. They have their opinions, I have mine, and some portions overlap, others don't. In particular, any statements made by protesters that speak of the "jewish defamers of Christ, I abhor. I also do not agree with the general tenor of the more moderate protests, and do not agree with the concept of the U.S. House of Representatives resolution condemning this movie. To my taste, this crosses the line of separation of church and state (but I will agree that I believe this line is a very blurry one). You may correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the general definition of censorship imply control by a *government agency*? As I said before, I've heard no calls for that. I will admit that *book burnings* are offensive to me, and I don't agree with the mentality that this represents, but I do believe the movie is a slightly different animal. For one thing, a novel does not get nearly as widely read as a movie is seen. A movie, being visual more than mental, cannot be viewed as dispassionately as a book. You and Mark have both accused me of preventing you from seeing what you want to see. But neither of you have addressed the point regarding the studio's self-restraint regarding other subjects. What if I wanted to see a movie portraying Hitler as a nice guy? The studios would refuse to produce it, I'm sure. Wouldn't I then be in your shoes and cry that this is censorship? Director Roman Polanski was the husband of Sharon Tate. When the book Helter-Skelter was released, he purchased the movie rights in order to prevent this book from being made into a movie that he did not only not want to see, but did not want anyone to see. Did he have the right to make that decision? For all of us? I really think that Universal could have and should have taken into account the feelings of those who claim Christ as saviour. And it's not just the "religious right". It's the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, many of the "mainline" denominations, etc. Well, you have the right to see the film, it has been released. I have the right to tell Universal that I was so offended by this that I can't bring myself to look at this film or any other film of theirs, as I feel it would be an act of betrayal to my Lord. If enough are like me, then Universal will tread more carefully next time, purely for *business reasons*. What a country! bW p.s.: I ask forgiveness for making such a long tirade. I hate reading long stuff like this. This will be message #428 From: Michelle Hass REPLY To: Bob Whitten Private? [y,N]: Subject: More Temptation Enter your message, blank line to end. Words will wrap automatically 1: ...you just don't seem to listen, do you? There is no way 2: that anyone can sanction religious censorship in this country. This 3: country was built on not just freedom *of* religion, but freedom *from* 4: religion as well. I could go and grab my picket sign and demand the 5: destruction of all existing prints of "Young Guns" and the destruction 6: of the negative because a ceremony that the Chiricahua Apache consider 7: sacred, the Peyote Vision, was shown as a thing to do "for kicks". As 8: a Shamanic Pagan that follows the traditions of that tribe, and is as 9: firm a believer in those traditions and the Life Giver as seen through 10: their eyes as you are obviously as firm a Christian, then you would 11: have to agree with this logic, right? Another example: What if the 12: Wiccan community demanded that the makers of the film "The Witches of 13: Eastwick" pull the film and destroy all prints and negatives? Would 14: the studio give a flying fig about their demands? No way. It cuts both 15: ways, dude. Peace, MK-H #242 15 17 Aug 88 22:48:39 (RECV'D) From: Bob Whitten To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #241 SEE ALSO #244 Subj: What you see is what you want Just for the record, our society does *not* give you the right to see anything and everything you want. In particular, kiddee porn and snuff porn are forbidden. Do you think you should have the *right* to see this? Maybe you would go beyond what the Surpreme Court says about free speech and demand your right to shout "fire!" in a crowded movie house. I didn't tell you what to do, I only want to tell Universal that they cannot just do any 'ole thing they want without there being repercussions. --- bW #252 17 18 Aug 88 01:06:05 (RECV'D) From: Len Anderson To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #245 SEE ALSO #253 Subj: Here's Mud in Your Eye Calm down. I did not say ALL. I said MOST. And most bear me out without trying hard to read what is being said. We were talking whether or not the movie was in any way sacriligious or portrayed Christ in some bad light. MOST of it was just an excuse for the anti-religious to get theirs off bashing an easy group such as the fundies. The protesting minority was desiring not-showing the film, no more than calling for some loudmouth to shut up in a conversation. Get real here Phil... Do you REALLY think they could scrape up a "measley" 20 Mil to "buy back" the film. Do you REALLY think ANYBODY does THAT KIND OF THING NOWADAYS with the chance of GOLD out in the audiences?????? #258 14 18 Aug 88 21:40:38 (RECV'D) From: Bob Whitten To: Mark Heinemann REPLY TO #253 SEE ALSO #259 Subj: Bill of Rights a protection against the Church? I would be very interested in knowing our source for this information, as I have never heard it before. I am very surprised at this because the Bill of Rights, as I'm sure you know, were put into the Constitution at the insistence of the STATES, not the convention, and most local politicians probably bragged about what good Churchmen they were. This seems inconsistent with what you're saying. #262 18 18 Aug 88 21:59:25 From: Bob Whitten To: All SEE ALSO #269 Subj: Revisionist History Since my hand is tipped regarding my faith, I might as well get this off my chest now. There is a move afoot to remove from history texts used in Public schools all reference to the religious reasons that people first colonized America. We can't be in the business of lying to our children about the truth of history in the name of separation of church and state. Even if the secularists don't like it, religion has left a large mark on History, and in particular in American History, Christian religion has shaped this history. I'll be the first to admit, this affect has not always been positive (remember learning about "Manifest Destiny"?). It is also unfair to our children to pretend that people are rarely moved by religion, since they will constantly find those that are. I tend to think that the recent rise in "fundamentalism" is largely do to the over-secularization of society: humans have practiced religion as long as recorded history and before, and if a void is created, it will tend to get filled. bW -- Censoring the censors. This will be message #430 From: Michelle Hass REPLY To: Bob Whitten Private? [y,N]: Subject: Revisionism indeed. Enter your message, blank line to end. Words will wrap automatically 1: This country, indeed, was founded on the principle of Religious 2: Freedom. That means freedom for not just Christians, but Jews, Muslims, 3: Buddhists, Native Faiths (such as the Yoruba tribal religion, which is 4: practiced by the descendants of the Yoruba slaves as Voudoun, Macumba 5: or Santeria) Pagans, and any other religion you would care to name. It 6: is also founded on the belief that those who do not believe in a God 7: have every right to demand freedom *FROM* religion as well. Both 8: Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were practically atheist. And 9: *all* of our revered Founding Fathers were Rationalists and Humanists 10: in the tradition of Descartes and other neo-Aristotelian thinkers. This 11: country was never intended to be the "Christian Nation" you desire. It 12: is a place of refuge for all people of ALL convictions. Spare me your 13: "America is Christ's Chosen Nation" BS. MK-H #264 14 19 Aug 88 00:14:56 (RECV'D) From: Mark Heinemann To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #259 SEE ALSO #265 Subj: Seperation of church and state The government of England tought the people that they rules by divine right. That was why the Seperation of Church and state was added. The Salem witch hunts were a seperate act, not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights. You might note that the Salem witch hunts and trials used the same type of logic as you in the beginning. I do not attack your personality but I must insist your logic is flawed by a total disregard for historical fact. You also refuse to learn from history. What you seek to start always ends with the fall of that government as well as a giant step back for science. #269 14 19 Aug 88 11:37:46 (RECV'D) From: Bob Albert To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #262 SEE ALSO #270 Subj: Book burning The days are over when the kids in school believe all that is in the textbooks. As a matter of fact, school has become a rather secondary place to learn, especially grammar school. So I wouldn't get too concerned over the content of the books they are told to read; most students only read enough to pass the course, and learn far more from what their teachers and peers say. Children are just as smart as adults; they are simply immature. If they learn something that isn't true, it often gets corrected as they grow up. And it's too bad that most adults are immature. They refuse to improve themselves; they spend hours watching television and they bemoan the fact that they have no time to learn anything or do anything. They find it far more convenient to be set in their ways than to keep an open mind; open minds are so much hard work and trouble... Learning is the most wonderful experience, and anyone who has no time for it also has no time to live his life. #270 17 19 Aug 88 12:49:50 (RECV'D) From: Len Anderson To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #269 SEE ALSO #278 Subj: SEPARATION Church and State VOIDS Father Andrew Greeley, the Jesuit and novelist, had an interesting article on various religions in a TV Guide about a month ago. It was mainly to talk about the "TV preachers" but also a chastisement of the TV news people in getting their demographics totally mixed. In essence,the total number of people attending church/temple, involved in religious life has INCREASED slightly in the last decade and has definitely increased in the last four decades. There is no actual rise in the number of 'PTL club' attendees or Falwellians or Swaggarts but a definite rise in the amount of attention they receive. Hence, it appears they are some majority group when in fact they are not... I wish someone had seen that article, it put some sense into this emotional, religion-bashing turmoil created by a few. #271 15 19 Aug 88 12:56:48 (RECV'D) From: Len Anderson To: Mark Heinemann REPLY TO #265 SEE ALSO #312 Subj: We will go a hunting... You are really an ignorant clod on this subject of witch trials... The action of a VERY SMALL minority of far-out PURITANS in the space of one year has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY BILL OF RIGHTS!!! These Puritans were acting when there was NO Constitution, NO government save the Colonial Governing body. What they did, even if they had done it at another time, would not have affected anything in governmental structure or history. The Elders in Salem (a small hick village at the time populated only by a few hundred) could have cared less whether the government was a monarchy or a dictatorship. This "celebration" of atheists such as yourself in pointing out the "terrible activities of religions" is nothing but smokeware. It is a minor notation in the history books. The ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY promoted these "trials" (beginning with a New York stage play) and considerable liberties have been taken with factual locations, people, dress, and, on two motion pictures, getting the dates wrong. If you think that the movies (including a French production) are any "documentary," then you are so far bent as to warrant your getting out of this conversation. #328 16 23 Aug 88 22:15:18 (RECV'D) From: Gary Graefen To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #312 SEE ALSO #330 Subj: The last temptation It might be construed that the objections of a christian to this movie and the demand for its destruction are censorship.But the real truth is that if one is a true christian and feels that something is harmful or detrimental to his brother than it is his christian duty to try and protect him from harm. Thats not censorship but genuine Christian love for ones fellow man.-Gary From: Phillip Hansford To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #350 SEE ALSO #368 Subj: Temptations -- clouding the issue Your attempts to cloud the issue have nothing to do with the case. Universal owned the rights to the film and had the right to produce it. I have the right to see it. It is wrong for you or for any other person or entity to attempt to prevent me from seeing it if I chose to. That is censorship. Censorship doesn't require a governmental stamp of approval before we can call it censorship...If someone chose to purchase the rights to a book so it would not be released, that is perfectly OK, since it doesn't prevent the distribution of the book. And since it isn't after the fact. This is after the fact. The money was invested. The movie was made. And I want to see it... Your right to chose not to see the film does not give you the right to prevent me from seeing it...When are the moral right wingers going to learn that freedom of worship does not mean freedom to oppress?...//Phil// #368 12 30 Aug 88 13:37:41 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #367 SEE ALSO #369 Subj: censorship (again) You *do* cloud the issue, don't you? I have no desire to see kiddie porn, or snuf porn, and I am insulted that you would suggest that I would!...These are not simple censorship issues, since they deal with illegal subjects...It is not illegal to portray Christ in a controversial manner. Therefore, it is an attempt at censorship to try to prevent it...//Phil// #369 12 30 Aug 88 13:46:49 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Len Anderson REPLY TO #368 SEE ALSO #374 Subj: mud in the issue Yes, I do think the Fundies could raise $20 million to buy back the film, if they had the opportunity. But what bothers me is that they would want to try...Of course they have the right to protest the film, (or to protest unclothed animals at the zoo, for that matter) if they want to. The also have the right to not go see the film. As it turns out, their protests will probably make a box office flop into a money maker, cause the participants in the movie to win Oscars, and create a whole new trend in Hollywood films...//Phil// #370 11 30 Aug 88 13:55:53 From: Phillip Hansford To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #348 SEE ALSO #378 Subj: revisionist history Then we agree on something...You seem to have 'pushed one of my buttons' when you talk about efforts by certain people to rewrite the history books used in schools for the purpose of removing religious elements...Of course there were religious elements in the settlement of America. The Puritans were a religious group. It would be preposterous to write that out...But while we are on the subject, there is a movement in Christianity which would try to rewrite our history texts for us to the other extreeme. They are called Christian Reconstructionists...In the extreme, some of them want to paint Hittler as a nice guy, who didn't slaughter millions of Jews...Facts are facts. How can anybody expect to try to change them?...//Phil// #374 11 30 Aug 88 17:03:27 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Gary Graefen REPLY TO #369 SEE ALSO #380 Subj: Christian love GG>if one is a true christian and feels that something is harmful or GG>detrimental to his brother than it is his christian duty to try GG>and protect him from harm. If you really believe that then you are worse off than I thought. Just be sure your Christian helpfullness doesn't step on my constitution...//Phil// #378 10 30 Aug 88 23:37:25 (RECV'D) From: Bob Albert To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #370 SEE ALSO #383 Subj: Facts Of course, you are absolutely correct. But it's also true that, if you believe something, it comes true. For you at least. So rewriting the history books will be the same as rewriting history. In other words, if Hitler is written as a nice guy, that is what he will become. The past has gone, and if we can profit from it somehow, that is to our advantage. To insist that certain things didn't happen will close our minds to growth; that would be unfortunate. There have been attempts, with varying success, to rewrite history. And there is the famous waste of money perpetrated by the husband of Hedy Lamaar the actress when he tried to buy every copy of Ecstasy, the movie in which she appeared nude. He just couldn't get every one, and thus might as well not have bothered. #384 12 31 Aug 88 11:50:26 (RECV'D) From: Len Anderson To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #381 SEE ALSO #387 Subj: Film is an Entertainment Product not a Forum Universal (as well as other studios) makes an ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCT that is no different than the hard goods produced on an assembly line. If a David Horowitz can attempt 'censorship' of hard goods (and many of his journalistic 'editorials' are just that) through innuendo, then it is the 'right' of any group to mean-mouth a motion picture. Or a rock concert. Or the L.A.Philharmonic. Or Chippendales'. 'Censorship' ALREADY exists in the "ratings" for motion pictures. Pooh, I care little for the subject matter here but bitterly resent the disguised anti-church attitude that is manifest by the so-called 'censorship' issue. The anti-church religion-haters could care spit about rights as long as they can feel free to bash whatever THEY want to thrash. A curious smokescreen. It is my "right" to go an bash a cult group or some pagan ritual organization for whatever grounds I care to dredge up. I don't do it, not on any 'need' to express my 'rights,' but its just as well NOT to do it on grounds of being respectful to others. Its also pointless since the pro-cult groups will dredge up "freedom of religion" and all that when they feel offended... #387 10 31 Aug 88 12:21:20 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Len Anderson REPLY TO #384 SEE ALSO #388 Subj: Name calling Why do you consider people who oppose censorship to be anti-Church? I think your message is getting hysterical...//Phil// #399 9 31 Aug 88 22:00:52 (RECV'D) From: Bob Whitten To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #397 SEE ALSO #401 Subj: The last desecration... Phil -- You are so right! Universal has every right to make this movie! I don't *think* I ever said they didn't. You have every right to see a movie that Universal has released! I never said you didn't. I would never support a movement for anyone opposing this particular movie by trying to blockading the theatre, or by harrassing those who have chosen it (except, how would like to read this tract? ...). I *do* want to continue to stand for my right to ask Universal to withdraw this movie from release. It may seem to be the same thing to you, but I believe that if Universal restricts you from seeing this film, that this is not censorship (it may be cowardice, but not censorship). I ask that Universal do this for their own selfish reasons: because I, and many million more, intend to make sure that Universal feels this in the pocketbook -- they are not going to pick on my faith and not hear about it from me! This is also not like book burning (although I'll have to admit that this argument troubled me for a while). I think of book burnings as an attempt by those not involved in the production of something to restrict its influence by reducing the number of copies available. I think that stinks. But in this case, I'm asking Universal to do it themselves. I feel sorry that I must get their attention by drastic means, but hey, how else am I gonna do it? I would not patronize a store that publickly called my mother names, and I do not intend to 'patronize' Universal since they have called my faith silly and my Lord a der Bob #407 7 01 Sep 88 00:58:10 From: Mark Heinemann To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #406 SEE ALSO #410 Subj: Censorship Now you attempt to rationalize extortion. The attempt to silence the film was not just free speech. The only Jewish member of the group invloves was single out, threatened and had his house surrounded and blockaded. This was a clear case of both extortion and an attempt to ride a wave of minority hate to power. It failed so now you try to justify it another way. #411 6 01 Sep 88 11:27:55 (RECV'D) From: Len Anderson To: Phillip Hansford REPLY TO #410 SEE ALSO #414 Subj: Explaining who was anti-church I was ONLY speaking about the general group of anti-religious flakes who are bent on destroying their favorite icons under any pretense. In this case the religious-sect opposition groups were immediately labelled as "censors" even though they were only exercising their rights of free speech in PROTESTING the motion picture. #415 6 01 Sep 88 12:56:21 From: Phillip Hansford To: Bob Whitten REPLY TO #414 SEE ALSO #417 Subj: That film I respect the honesty of your views, and your right to boycott Universal if that pleases you. But I still feel that asking Universal to pull their film is in the area of censorship... In fact, I suspect that the film is a good thing (although I haven't seen it yet). It may actually cause many millions of people who don't normally think about religion to think about it. If your faith is solid, seeing the film will not shake it. If your faith is weak, seeing the film could cause you to renew it. Although there certainly are many people who do not agree with the film. And certainly many who would disagree with it strongly enough to picket or boycott, I think that when the rucus is over and the receipts are counted, Universal will have made a bundle. And it is even tempting to suspect Universal of having pulled off one of the biggest publicity gimicks ever. I have heard that philosophy aside, the film is really not that good...//Phil// #417 6 01 Sep 88 13:13:51 (RECV'D) From: Phillip Hansford To: Len Anderson REPLY TO #415 SEE ALSO #418 Subj: Explaining who was anti-church There was also at least one group which was anti-Semitic, and used protesting the film as an opportunity for publicity (Rev. H-- something or other)...//Phil//

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank